3 ms·

If your only concern is reducing the number of mass shootings, yes, that is exactly (and the only) correct answer from the data. The only reason why the US has

by kromem 11y ago

If your only concern is reducing the number of mass shootings, yes, that is exactly (and the only) correct answer from the data. The only reason why the US has more of these shootings is because we have more guns, and reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of shootings. However, the fact that these are extremely rare occurrences needs to be noted. Gun control has a lot more factors that are probably much more important than the rare issue of mass shootings. To put it in perspective, doctors' sloppy handwriting kills roughly 7,000 people annually. That's far more than combined spree shooting victims. Certainly mandating doctors to type out all communication would be much easier than the herculean task of ridding the US of guns. And the broader gun control issue has other issues and data that would need to be examined. Unfortunately, we don't have particularly good data regarding guns in the US due to the effective ban on government funded gun data (thanks NRA!). Personally, I'd like to see the first step in gun control being federal funding directed toward research. Do guns (concealed carry, etc) actually deter other forms of violent crime? How many homeowners have used guns in self defense during a home invasion? For example, a study in the 1990s found between 800,000 to 2.4 million defensive gun uses annually (Kleck & Gertz). And apparently while in the UK roughly half of all burglaries are when homeowners are present, in the US it's only 13%. There's also some data that suggests increases in crime rates in the years after gun bans, but the data comes from strong pro-gun sources and I'm a bit skeptical as to the validity. Basically the data I could find regarding general gun control is spurious at best. We need better data on the pros and cons of gun ownership, and our decisions should be driven from that data and not anecdotal or tragic but extremely uncommon (statistically) events. So in my opinion, the rallying cry when national attention is on guns should not be taking head conjecture from all sides, but rather a national plea for better data so we can have an informed opinion on the issue.

ajuc 11y ago
> To put it in perspective, doctors' sloppy handwriting kills roughly 7,000 people annually. That's far more than combined spree shooting victims. Certainly mandating doctors to type out all communication would be much easier than the herculean task of ridding the US of guns. This is a false alternative. There's nothing forcing us to solve just 1 of these problems. > Personally, I'd like to see the first step in gun control being federal funding directed toward research. Do guns (concealed carry, etc) actually deter other forms of violent crime? How many homeowners have used guns in self defense during a home invasion? Another question that should be asked to be fair - do gun ownership among general population encourages criminals to take guns with them when they perform crime? Does the presence of a gun increase probabililty of a crime turning violent/deadly? My expectation: gun ownership makes crimes slightly less frequent (higher barrier to entry), at the cost of making it much more common for the crime to turn violent/deadly to someone.
- kromem 11y ago
  First off, I wasn't in the least presenting it as an actual alternative. I was putting the spree shooting issue in context (much like the terrorism vs falling TVs statistics). Personally, as someone that's rather data driven, I hate when statistically rare issues get WAY more attention than more prevalent and pressing issues. The gun control issues really shouldn't revolve around mass shootings any more than the issue around national nutrition should revolve around nut allergies. It'd be insane if the country was arguing banning peanuts after someone dies from a nut allergy. But we do the same with guns now. The real discussion is the everyday issue regarding guns. And you're probably correct with your assumptions. Here in the US, we have 4x the homicide rate as, say, the UK, where gun ownership is very low. And our violent crimes is probably only about 60-70% of their rate. BUT, if we look at per capita rates for that, it means here we have about 3 more people killed out of 100,000 each year, but they have about 200-300 people beaten, raped, etc each year out of 100,000. Again, crime rate comparisons are a very inexact and difficult thing to do well, but my numbers for this come from a rebuttal of a pro-gun sound-byte, so I'm hoping they're a bit on the conservative side: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checkin... Personally, I'm lucky to not know anyone who has been shot dead by a criminal. (I do know someone who was shot dead by police while drunk though - but police gun ownership is not at all on the discussion table in the US). I do know two people who were beaten and left brain damaged, and one that was raped in front of her kids during a home invasion with a knife-welding assailant. Now, I've mostly lived in areas in the US that were the least gun friendly (NYC and CA), so maybe people in other areas would have different stats. But certainly even here in the US, violent crimes are around 100x more common than homicides, and a reduction of 30-40% there would improve a greater quantity of lives than a 4-fold reduction in homicides. (The net quality of a trade-off is extremely debatable. And a debate we should be having.) Still, I'd love to see better and more trustworthy data at a greater scale than what's currently available before I throw my weight behind one side or another. I can argue either side because both have valid points. But I find myself at a loss for which I ultimately agree with, as I simply don't have enough information to make an educated decision. And as someone that actually actively looks for the data, if I can't figure it out, I have a hard time listening to self-assured opinions on the matter (of which there are plenty on both sides). This is a complex issue that needs sophisticated analysis, but that's not at all the attention it gets as long as the only time it's discussed is in the context of a knee jerk reaction to a 1 out of 7,000,000 occurrence. P.S. I bring up the ways violent crime has reached the people around me not to try and sway with an appeal to anecdotes, but simply to add the human element to the generic "violent crime" term. We have the human element of gun violence constantly put before us in the media, but the crimes people survive (though often scarred and broken) simply don't get the same attention. These are often serious matters and at 100x an already 4x inflated homicide rate, they are the issues I find myself more worried about than guns.
hga 11y ago
Unfortunately, we don't have particularly good data regarding guns in the US due to the effective ban on government funded gun data (thanks NRA!). If we/"the NRA" had any faith that researchers like Kleck would get some of this funding, we might go for that. But with the formal US medical establishment, i.e. the CDC, AMA, NEJM et. al. cheering on fraudulent research that concludes "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder", which score "success" for gun owners only as killing an intruder, which is not by itself even legal.... (It can be legal to threaten or use deadly force to stop an intruder, but intentionally using it to kill an intruder is illegal.) The CDC, at least, needs to focus on its official mission; the Ebola outbreak and multiple lab safety screwups shows that it's been living on past glory and really needs to refocus.

by kromem 11y ago

ajuc 11y ago

> To put it in perspective, doctors' sloppy handwriting kills roughly 7,000 people annually. That's far more than combined spree shooting victims. Certainly mandating doctors to type out all communication would be much easier than the herculean task of ridding the US of guns. This is a false alternative. There's nothing forcing us to solve just 1 of these problems. > Personally, I'd like to see the first step in gun control being federal funding directed toward research. Do guns (concealed carry, etc) actually deter other forms of violent crime? How many homeowners have used guns in self defense during a home invasion? Another question that should be asked to be fair - do gun ownership among general population encourages criminals to take guns with them when they perform crime? Does the presence of a gun increase probabililty of a crime turning violent/deadly? My expectation: gun ownership makes crimes slightly less frequent (higher barrier to entry), at the cost of making it much more common for the crime to turn violent/deadly to someone.

kromem 11y ago
First off, I wasn't in the least presenting it as an actual alternative. I was putting the spree shooting issue in context (much like the terrorism vs falling TVs statistics). Personally, as someone that's rather data driven, I hate when statistically rare issues get WAY more attention than more prevalent and pressing issues. The gun control issues really shouldn't revolve around mass shootings any more than the issue around national nutrition should revolve around nut allergies. It'd be insane if the country was arguing banning peanuts after someone dies from a nut allergy. But we do the same with guns now. The real discussion is the everyday issue regarding guns. And you're probably correct with your assumptions. Here in the US, we have 4x the homicide rate as, say, the UK, where gun ownership is very low. And our violent crimes is probably only about 60-70% of their rate. BUT, if we look at per capita rates for that, it means here we have about 3 more people killed out of 100,000 each year, but they have about 200-300 people beaten, raped, etc each year out of 100,000. Again, crime rate comparisons are a very inexact and difficult thing to do well, but my numbers for this come from a rebuttal of a pro-gun sound-byte, so I'm hoping they're a bit on the conservative side: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checkin... Personally, I'm lucky to not know anyone who has been shot dead by a criminal. (I do know someone who was shot dead by police while drunk though - but police gun ownership is not at all on the discussion table in the US). I do know two people who were beaten and left brain damaged, and one that was raped in front of her kids during a home invasion with a knife-welding assailant. Now, I've mostly lived in areas in the US that were the least gun friendly (NYC and CA), so maybe people in other areas would have different stats. But certainly even here in the US, violent crimes are around 100x more common than homicides, and a reduction of 30-40% there would improve a greater quantity of lives than a 4-fold reduction in homicides. (The net quality of a trade-off is extremely debatable. And a debate we should be having.) Still, I'd love to see better and more trustworthy data at a greater scale than what's currently available before I throw my weight behind one side or another. I can argue either side because both have valid points. But I find myself at a loss for which I ultimately agree with, as I simply don't have enough information to make an educated decision. And as someone that actually actively looks for the data, if I can't figure it out, I have a hard time listening to self-assured opinions on the matter (of which there are plenty on both sides). This is a complex issue that needs sophisticated analysis, but that's not at all the attention it gets as long as the only time it's discussed is in the context of a knee jerk reaction to a 1 out of 7,000,000 occurrence. P.S. I bring up the ways violent crime has reached the people around me not to try and sway with an appeal to anecdotes, but simply to add the human element to the generic "violent crime" term. We have the human element of gun violence constantly put before us in the media, but the crimes people survive (though often scarred and broken) simply don't get the same attention. These are often serious matters and at 100x an already 4x inflated homicide rate, they are the issues I find myself more worried about than guns.

hga 11y ago

Unfortunately, we don't have particularly good data regarding guns in the US due to the effective ban on government funded gun data (thanks NRA!). If we/"the NRA" had any faith that researchers like Kleck would get some of this funding, we might go for that. But with the formal US medical establishment, i.e. the CDC, AMA, NEJM et. al. cheering on fraudulent research that concludes "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder", which score "success" for gun owners only as killing an intruder, which is not by itself even legal.... (It can be legal to threaten or use deadly force to stop an intruder, but intentionally using it to kill an intruder is illegal.) The CDC, at least, needs to focus on its official mission; the Ebola outbreak and multiple lab safety screwups shows that it's been living on past glory and really needs to refocus.